Overall sentiment: Reviews for Brookdale Finneytown are highly mixed, with a wide spread from very positive to strongly negative. Many families praise the facility’s cleanliness, attractive and home-like aesthetics, helpful admissions staff and certain caregivers who deliver compassionate, attentive care. At the same time a large number of reviews raise significant concerns about staffing reliability, training, medication and safety practices, dining quality, billing transparency, and inconsistent management. The pattern that emerges is a facility with strong physical assets and pockets of excellent staff and programming, paired with systemic operational problems that produce very different experiences depending on unit, shift and which caregivers are on duty.
Care quality and clinical issues: Care quality is uneven. Several reviewers describe “top-notch” care, 24/7 RN presence, and staff who are attentive to medical needs; others report serious lapses — medications given at incorrect times or withheld (including refusals to administer liquids or sprinkle medications), care plans not followed, ignored hypoglycemia and suspected untreated infections, and transfers to hospital that families felt were avoidable. Use of agency staff appears frequent and many reviewers say agency nurses or aides are not familiar with residents’ needs. Call/pendant buttons not functioning reliably and delayed response times are recurring safety concerns. There are also reports of safety hazards (e.g., water on bathroom floor) and instances where custodial responsibilities or poor staffing levels appear to override personalized care.
Staffing, training, and culture: Staffing instability and turnover are among the most commonly cited problems. Multiple reviews mention underpaid, overworked, or untrained RCAs and aides, high turnover, and the negative consequences of relying on temporary agency staff. Contrast this with numerous reports praising specific employees — nurses, aides, directors, and front-desk staff — who are described as caring, proactive and ‘‘going the extra mile.’’ Management and leadership impressions are mixed: admissions/sales teams and some administrators are frequently praised for excellent tours, communication during move-in and initial responsiveness, whereas other reviewers describe unprofessional or bullying management, poor follow-up on issues, and mistrust after unresolved problems.
Facilities and amenities: The physical plant receives largely positive feedback. Many reviewers comment on a clean, bright, and attractive environment, renovated spaces, pleasant grounds, garden seating, a fenced courtyard, spa/salon, ice cream parlor, and well-appointed common rooms. However, not every area is uniformly updated — some reviewers report older or out-of-date sections, ongoing renovation disruption, broken equipment (e.g., ice machine), stained carpets, odors (including urine), and even isolated pest reports (bedbugs). Apartment size and layout are variable in reviews: some describe generous rooms and good layouts, while others say rooms are small and furniture won’t fit. The facility’s X-shaped layout is noted as potentially difficult to navigate for visually impaired residents.
Dining and nutrition: Opinions on food are polarized. Many families praise the chef interaction, tasty meals, and dining room service, while an equal or greater number report poor food quality, limited menu choices, slow or poorly run dining service, dirty utensils, and inflexibility (hot meals not available for entire service window; texture-modified meals poorly prepared). Several reviewers note that staff do not reliably feed or assist residents, and there are complaints about extra charges for services families assumed were included.
Activities and social life: Activity programming is reported often and includes dancing, sing-alongs, entertainers, outings, and memory-focused stations. Several reviewers value the robust calendar and find residents engaged and happy. Conversely, many accounts describe low-functioning activities, lack of meaningful outings or day trips, little backup when an activities coordinator is out, and memory-care units where staff are disengaged or distracted. The takeaway is that programming exists and can be excellent, but consistency and scope vary by unit and staffing.
Admissions, billing and transparency: Multiple reviews raise concerns about sales and admission practices. Positive comments describe informative tours and good move-in assistance, but numerous negative reports cite misleading statements (notably transportation advertised as free but actually billed ~$65+ per trip), pressure to sign and deposit, unclear contract language and billing errors (double billing, unexpected charges), and difficulty receiving refunds. Several families describe emotional pressure from staff; others report that administrative staff initially seemed exemplary but follow-through deteriorated. There are also alarming reports about lack of transparency regarding serious incidents or death, and complications with hospice billing.
Memory care and suitability for higher needs: Memory care reviews are split. Some families praise the small memory-care community, individualized attention, secure environment and routine-based activities that help cognition. Others say the unit is not prepared for residents with higher needs, with reports of staff unable to handle dementia behaviors, untrained aides, residents being removed abruptly, and staff disengagement or phone use during shifts. Families considering memory care should probe staffing ratios, turnover, training, and policies on care transitions.
Value and fit: Several reviewers feel Brookdale Finneytown offers reasonable pricing and good value compared with alternatives, especially when they experienced compassionate staff and engaged programming. Other families feel the cost does not match the level of care received and cite ongoing price increases, unexpected fees, and maintenance or service shortcomings. The mixed reports suggest that individual experiences vary considerably depending on the specific team assigned, the health profile of the resident, unit conditions, and which parts of the facility are occupied.
Key patterns and recommendations for families: The dominant theme is variability — excellent staff and clean, amenity-rich spaces exist alongside significant operational lapses. Families report vastly different experiences even within the same facility. For prospective residents and families: (1) conduct multiple in-person visits across different days and times to observe staffing consistency and mealtime/activity quality; (2) ask explicitly about agency staff usage, staff turnover rates, RN coverage, and training for dementia care; (3) verify any sales claims in writing (transportation costs, included services, refund policies); (4) review medication policies (times, formulations, acceptance of liquid/sprinkle meds) and emergency response procedures; and (5) request references from current families in the specific unit you are considering.
In summary, Brookdale Finneytown presents many strong assets — cleanliness, attractive environment, solid amenities, and a number of genuinely caring employees and administrators. However, recurring and substantive concerns about staffing stability, training, medication and safety practices, dining consistency, billing transparency, and uneven management make experiences inconsistent. Families need to do focused due diligence to determine whether this particular campus and its current staffing pattern will meet their loved one’s needs reliably.
